Player Features and Ideas Discussion

TBQH....if he did, my respect for him would go up a bit.

It would be less imbalanced than it is now, and it depends on the details of the OA. If the OA is more costly than a deployable like the depots, then no, cloaks won't be balanced by them. It's a ships module, being used to hunt individuals in space, and it should be countered on an individual basis by other ships, not SOV level structures.

If it's only counter is an OA, and it turns out to be a casual structure like a deployable, I would say that it is unfair to cloaks, as a hunting ship would not be sacrificing fitting options to offset the sacrifices made by choosing a cov-ops ship and fitting a cloak.

How about this....

The OA is destructible in the vulnerability window.

The OA is subvertable outside the vulnerability window.

Trying to destroy the OA sends out notices all over the place--e.g. alliance wide basically.

Failed subversion attempt sends out an alliance wide notification.

Successful subversion...nothing you think your OA is still operating, but now it shows me as blue.

Obvsiously the devil is in the details. Subversion should be somewhat difficult, and possibly linked to ADM levels. The higher the level the harder the "hack".

And maybe if you have an alt plugged into the OA system you can see my hacking attempt.

IDK, just spit balling here.

And yeah, the OA, if the right module is fitted, should allow for scanning down a cloaked ship. Say 5 minutes (the time lag allowing for players to go take a bio, run to the fridge, etc. while in hostile territory, but no serious AFK camping....or make the time frame linked to ADM levels, high levels maybe 1 minute low levels 20 minutes....).

And again, I want NS to be independent...to be able to cut most ties with NS. I'd love to see local production, invention, mining, etc. Where an alliance/coalitions ability to churn out doctrine ships is a key to winning a battle vs. importing them form HS via JF. Where you'd have players out mining both in anomalies, belts and people killing rats, and building stuff, etc. Maybe a given citadel has a players hoard of researched BPOs and a load of BPCs for invention and manufacturing...maybe the entire alliance so they will fight to the death for that citadel. I'd even be fine with a NS alliance/coalition having a dedicated corp of "carebears" who enjoy builidng, inventing, etc. and help keep the line members in ships and defending the Motherland....or whatever.

Ah, so nothing like you said... what you mean is what you are nodding along with Teckos right now.

Which is reasonable. He's much smarter than you, and not prone to wetting himself.

I was excited about those sorts of details months ago. Not so much now.

Subversion can be interesting, though its something that needs to be sufficiently easy to counter that it does not make having the thing active useless. Much like my suggestion allowing the resetting of a ships autopilot destination through hacking--- if you are not paying attention you will find yourself in trouble, but if you are then the impact is limited.

In that case I would put subversion as a time limited thing. You are blue, but not for the next few hours, much less days, weeks, etc... that is currently the problem with cloaking.

I will refuse to discuss any balance principal based on having multiple accounts online, however. Using an alt rather than your main because you have a ship that can't be docked is one thing. Putting an alt online as your own scout or something should not be a balance point---anything done with an alt that way can be done by multiple players. Multiple players is what the game should encourage, not the Alt-legion. Time and again, Alts are why we can't have nice things.

Nope.

Notably, this would have the interesting effect of making NPC null have no local at all, since ideally the starbase module would require sov ownership. (and even more ideally, into the realm of fevered dream, NPC null would have plenty of opportunity to engage with the pirate factions)

Finally a serious differentiation between the two barring the ability to plant a flag.

The OA should be anchorable in all space, even HS IIRC. It may not have the same functionality, but it will be used widely, even in WH space I believe.

So as we know nothing about player retention in this regard, why do you keep harping on about it and ignoring what is involved? That is my point. You can gloss over it as much as you like, but local is and will remain, a major part of this discussion.

As far as threats are concerned implicit or not, you're in null. I lived there for years and took everyone including blues as a threat. If you don't think you're going to lose your ship at any moment in null, you're playing the wrong game.

But now instead of accepting there should be some threat, you wish to lessen it for the ratters. But in a way that ignores the main culprit for this threads existence. Local.

Those you and Mike are arguing against, can see intel mechanics through other means. Even though Mike likes to play word games, such as his stance on invulnerability which you have run with and now on what someone else means. You'll find the majority of those who want talk of local, will also include a way to locate cloaked ships with local removed. You and Mike and tbh most of the AFK whiners main focus, is to nerf cloaks.

My stance is as follows. I like the status quo. Why? Well I like the inclusion psychological play.
But if changes need to happen, then local should be included with any changes to cloaks. I fully accept that cloaks may be OP in their current state, if local is simply removed and no other form of finding them is introduced. We should also consider WH dwellers in any change and maybe even stop the use of any system there, if that's what they wish.

But to simply nerf cloaks and ignore local, is neither balanced nor will fix AFKing.


It's only as limiting as you allow it to be. Hence why we think of it as psychological warfare. Reship or refit your ship, form a fleet, carry on. It's not rocket science. No one cloaked and AFK ever stopped people using modules, gates, stations, ships etc etc. The one that stopped them, was them.

Oh and the invulnerability, is still a two way street.

Actually ... when people start lobbying for unwarranted nerfs and more overall security, it is our duty to raise an opposing voice. The argument IF fixes should take place is a valid one.

Whine hard enough and CCP will give us what we want? Not good enough.

New mechanics may be coming our way and we will adapt; yet perpetual implicit threat is not a problem that needs fixing. It is as Mag's put it a form of psychological warfare, and judging by how the cloaker has you firmly in his impotent grasp of terror, it is working quite nicely

On the off-chance CCP is reading any of this (which I doubt), it is imperative to showcase the mechanic in its current form is not regarded unbalanced by the majority of EvE posters. It is equally important to poke some holes in your hot air balloons before they take off, lest there are cases which the devs may not have considered.

So yes, looking for fixes without making a case for why there needs to be a fix, is taking a leap too far from the onset. In the case Mike presented, for example, it turned out his problem was not the "invulnerable cloaker" but the mere fact he refused to take Multiplayer into account. More to the point, he refused to take DEFENSE fleets into account for at the same time, it was assumed the OFFENSE fleet was numerous as evidenced by the cyno. If his showcase had been a pure 1-v-1 story, of course his PvE ship would simply blow up the recon or -lacking a longpoint- force it offgrid in no time.

Only after defining the parameters for his case (a SOLO non-PvP fit ship in deep sov space versus a whole host of offenders pouring through a cyno) did it become apparent the showcase was invalid and therefore, no fix was needed.

Thus far, you haven't even started to present a case, yet you've launched at least 5 or 6 hot air balloon fixes. Don't fix it if it ain't broke. Can you raise a compelling argument as to what exactly is broken, in your opinion? Thus far you have spoken about "the guy who logs on, sees a red in local, and logs right back off". Is this guy alone? What is this guy trying to accomplish? Where does this guy live? Why does he log off? If you are talking about just ONE guy trying to rat in sov null, then you are presenting the exact same case Mike did, and the same answers apply: (a) get an alliance / get fleets in the air. (b) find out if the threat is a genuine threat or sound asleep. (c) go back to highsec.

Do you understand why it is important you tell us the whole story from the top, and not just go off on some assumption we're supposed to take your word for?

Sorry no dice. The reason caps and supers came up because in your ignorance, once again I might add, you tried to equate the act of hunting caps and supers with ganking a miner.

You cling to it so fervently because you have nothing else and well gosh that's just inconvenient.

I like this part "go unchallenged by enemies"...what? Did the big bad cloaker bump you? Because that's all they can do.

You've not been able to refute anything I've said, not even your peni..sorry...super envy is relevant.

And talking of compelling reasons, you're still to produce one which shows cloaks are broken. And no, but I MUST maximise isk/hour isn't one. It's literally the opposite of one.